Well if relativity as it has been explained to me in this thread is correct the light is traveling 300,000 m/s from the ship. When you add that the ship is traveling towards the earth at 150,000 m/s you have light traveling at 450,000 m/s

Since the maximum speed of light is 300,000 m/s something is wrong with the theory.

Would you care to explain what that problem is to me?

OK, so according to relativity it is leaving at 300,000 km/s, and you are right - this results in something that appears paradoxical. There is a solution to this paradox which I will come to.

Are you talking about something that is observed with the natural eye?

We've performed the experiment. While travelling at 30km/s towards and away from a source of light, the speed of light was still measured to be 300,000km/s.

This being the case, do you agree that this would result in some unusual scenarios as described in Message 483? If so, do you have an answers as to whose observations are the correct ones? Does your cosmological model have a solution to the issues at hand?

Stop arguing semantics. You argue that Time is a concept of man invented by man. Computers are a concept of man invented by man. Before man invented computers, they did not exist on Earth. That's your argument - A concept of man cannot exist prior to the invention of said concept. Therefore, according to your logic, since Time is an invention of man's, that means Time did not exist before man. Since light is a concept of man, light did not exist before man conceptualize light. Since gravity is a concept of man, gravity did not exist before man conceptualize gravity.

The point is just because something has been conceptualized by man doesn't mean it didn't exist prior to the conceptualization. If you argue that a concept doesn't exist prior to being conceptualized, then tell me if gravity existed prior to Newton conceptualizing it.

ICANT writes:

With the first created life form, the first man that walked and talked with Him.

I didn't know you were that old. Of course, you were there to witness this event. And don't tell me it was in a book that you read. Because another book I've read tells me there's a school of magic located in England that you can only get to by running into a column at the train station. Of course, And don't tell me the book is old and that's why we should give it credence, because the Epic of Gilgamesh is pretty old too and they talk of ancient gods as well. Age does not equal truth.

The way you argue reminds me of this non sequitur strip. You are the caveman standing in the rain saying it isn't raining, and when someone else asks why are you wet, you ask them to define wet.

Here again you've misunderstood what is being explained in the article, and simply quoted the heading of the article; a heading that was given to the article by the writer, not the physicist.

If you read the full article you would have read the actual quote from the physicist:

quote:"The important new contribution is that light carries both wave and particle aspects at all times, and future experiments will further clarify the nature of each component." Afshar said.

What is time made of?

Time is experienced by all biological organisms, particles, molecules, etc.; eventually, in a finite amount of time, each individual organism/particle/sub-atomic particle decays. When you increase the speed of the time experienced you can reduce that decaying process.

That is why a photon travelling at (c) doesn't experience time and doesn't decay. If it where possible (which it is not) for humans to travel at (c), then we too would not experience time or decay.

Time is not "made of anything," it is an aspect of reality, it is a dimension in our universe, that is experienced not "seen."

Some say it is made of particles called gravitons, some say it is a force, but no one really knows.

You don't really know, don't say "no one."

Gravity was considered a force 100 years ago when Newtonian physics was the only theory that explained gravity. But Einstein changed our understanding of gravity and explained it not as a force, but as an effect of mass on spacetime.

Mass curves space; gravity is that curvature. The Earth is not being "pulled" toward the Sun by some unknown gravitational force; the Earth is following the curvature of space caused by the Sun's mass, and travels in an orbit because it too (the Earth) curves the space around itself.

Or, we travel towards some kind of source of light and measure the speed of light as it comes towards us.

Well that is not what you was talking about. You said:

Modulous writes:

I'm a spaceship. Ground control sends me a message which says that by the time that we receive this message we will be 1 light year from earth. We send a reply which says "Hello World!". At this point we are travelling at 50% of the speed of light. So about 150,000 kms (relative to earth).

Now - we watch that signal moving away from us and we measure its speed: 300,000 kms (relative to us). Therefore, by addition the light must be travelling at 450,000 kms. This means that the signal will get to earth in less than a year.

I agreed that as GR has been presented this would be the case. I also stated something was wrong with the theory.

Look, God created man and breathed life into him. This is not a fact and is countered with scientific evidence. Man was not the first organism, this too is supported with scientific evidence.

Gen. 2.7 is disproven scientifically. That is the ONLY THING your thread is about.

What is the difference between time being stopped at the speed of light and not experiencing time at the speed of light?

To deep of a discussion and is off-topic to your thread.

Apes who evolved from x who evolved from y who evolved from z who evolved from non life.

Therefore man evolved from non life makes no difference how you spin it.

It doesn't matter past apes. Gen 2.7 is the only thing in question here (and Gen. 1, which I guess you've conceded on). If you want to discuss the evidence to support evolution of man, pick a thread that deals with it and post there.

Yes, the way we tell/measure time (and please lets not get hung-up on semantics) was invented by man to measure the duration of existance ( the duration of experienced time). But also, to measure how long a proposed distance will take to travel (How long does it take to get from Miami to NYC?). We need to know how to measure duration to be able to give an accurate answer. Today it's no big deal, but a thousand years ago you could die on a trip if you calculated wrong and didn't bring enough food.

So time is an actual function in reality. We take time into consideration even before we had clocks or even language.

Now we are in an age that deals with the cosmos, though. The distance travelled in this realm is of an enormous proportion - other methods of measuring, with much more complicated mathematics, needed to be introduced. Relativity is just such a unit to measure with. It takes "time" or "duration of an event" and understands it at a great distance. However, when physicist began to do this, they noticed certain anomalies about the nature of (that which we refer to as time) when different components were factored in - like (extremely fast) speed or great density.

So when we speak of time and (c), and things like that, it's not something understood logically. It involves learning the math, the theories and equations to comprehend the complexity of what is being described.

However, the most important thing about the point I'm making is this: That you don't get to change these facts as understood and recognized by science. And that's the point in regards to your thread and the question you asked in your OP.

You have been presented the scientific evidence. That is all you asked for. The statement stands, According to science and their evidence, Gen 1 and Gen 2.7 are proven wrong.

Now, feel free to personally reject the evidence, that doesn't matter or change anything. Reject it all you want, debate in any forum you wish, but understand that as far as this thread is concerned and your OP, you have been given what you asked for. You have been show the evidence for why Gen. 1 and Gen. 2.7 are disproven by science. Whether you agree with it or not, it doesn't matter.

And frankly, you don't qualify to give an educated accessment of the scientific evidence. A simple "thank you" is enough.